Skip to main content
9:00 pm
intent of [inaudible] to bargain a contract for our 1100 classified employees in the district. [inaudible] submitted our sunshine letter and we are willing to negotiate in good faith and i am looking forward to work with mr. ruiz and his team and we are excited to enter into negotiation soon. and so in that regard i would hope that we would have a productive result and that the district will also recognize that local 1021 along with the other /kwraoupb -- unions will be entering into a contract and i am happy to be here. thank you for putting me in the agenda. >> thank you and welcome. with any -- is there any other
9:01 pm
comments from the board? no? i'm gonna close the public hearing and move on to item m, discussion of other educational issues. mr. superintendent. >> thank you president norton. i'd like to call christina wong and staff -- sorry, yes, yes. director kevin chavez and christina wong to do this next presentation. looks like this.
9:02 pm
good evening commissioners and superintendent. we have witness tonight elementary supervisor, angie [inaudible]. we also have our program administrator for world languages and dual language education michelle [inaudible]. we have with us the assistance
9:03 pm
-- jennifer [inaudible]. so our outcomes for tonight -- we'd like to introduce the shifts in the 2012 california english language development standards and why they're important. we'd like to share some new data and then present the process and timeline for the [inaudible] action plan revisions. so the purpose of the new california eld standards is to align with california's common course state standards for english language arts, history, social studies, science and technical subjects in common course state standards and also to highlight and amplify key language [inaudible] that are critical for el's to succeed in school while they are developing english. tonight you'll hear a little bit about our work to
9:04 pm
date. so the purpose is also to provide opportunities to en/hreurb learners to access and engage with -- in light of the next generation content standards. it's critical that this be a tool that is deeply understood and used by all teachers. we've been engaged in making this happen with our partners from humanities and math and sciences. so we're gonna talk just briefly about the key shifts in the 2012 california eld standard. so on the left is reflecting the old
9:05 pm
standards and the right side is really representing that shift in what the new standards are providing with in terms of opportunity for our english learns and how we work with them. and i'll just highlight a couple of each slides. the first one i'm gonna talk about is the use of simply fied text and activities /a*ufpb separate from content knowledge. and moving to ooo deeper understanding of the use of context test [inaudible]. this is really important for our english learners because oftentimes they get a watered down kinda text and we're working with them and they never get access to that academic language that is found in our content area textbooks. another one of the key shifts from the old standards to the new set of standards on the
9:06 pm
next slide is -- i'm gonna highlight the top one. en/hreurb has a sit of rules to understanding of a meaning making resource based on audience task and purpose. the key here is that it be meaningful and applicable to students' lives and learning in the classroom. now angie will share some things. >> so what you have on this hand out that was given to you is to highlight how language is at the center so keeping in mind that as kevin highlighted the eld standard is there intended to highlight and amplify the language that students need to express their thinking and understanding in
9:07 pm
all content areas. so this visual captures that. what i'd like to do now is share the work that our department multilingual that kevin referred to has been engaged with humanities. we have been at the table with them to collaborate and really think about -- even before the california eld standards were adopted in november, we were already thinking about what is the language that we need to highlight and amplify because we know this is what our teachers have to think about /-fpt . so this is what you see before you is the stages of our work for ela. and going to the next slide what we've captured is the work we know we need to do with our collaborative partners in humanities in particular to
9:08 pm
really do the work centrally so that leaders understand these shifts and what it means for eld standards to work in tandem with all content so we're doing this deep work with humanities and because the mass is also standards that have come up, we're at the table with mass as well to think about where do we call out the english language that students need for math as well? so this highlights a road map that we have aligned with our humanities partners. so [inaudible] will now highlight the english lerner achievement data. thank you. so we're gonna look at two different types. the first is looking at reclassification rates of /stoupbts moving from english lerner to fluent english proficient and the
9:09 pm
second will be english achievement. so on this graph you can see a four year period and the line graph at the top shows the number of el's that have been reclassified and there has been a steep increase. and these orange and black -- orange rep sen the school -- represent the school district, black represents the states. >> at least they're paying attention. >> you can see where the number
9:10 pm
increased so did the classification for the district. we worked with stanford in order to clean up our data to we would have the capacity to look at el data by pathway so this is a preliminary slide looking at classification and you can see here that reclassification begins in third grade and it -- we wait 'til students have taken the [inaudible] and then are classified during this time period. on the left here are chinese english learners and on the right is spanish. when we look at chinese speaking el's they showed similar results.
9:11 pm
for spanish speaking el's this shows a slightly different rate of reclassification so in the third grade more el's [inaudible] you can see here that there become a gap and students in biliteracy [inaudible] we are able to -- in the process of cleaning up our data we are able to look at data by el pathway. on the next slide... >> can i just make one suggestion. this is really important that slide is really important, but blue on blue on other blue -- i can't even differentiate what is what so
9:12 pm
if you could get this re-sent to us would be great. >> do you want me to do it later? >> okay. next we're gonna be looking at achievement by el pathway. so it's important to look at change because [inaudible]. and so we're going to look at achievement or growth from english learners and we're going to look at two different sets looking at the [inaudible] and then the cst. so this graph is looking at second graders in 2009, 10 and what's happening is they are -- we're looking to see which students are matched from second to third grade and what percentage of these students are made growth on the self on
9:13 pm
the california english [inaudible] so in the dark blue we have the [inaudible] pathway and in the green you can see the percentage of students who are made growth. then the same cohort of students -- what percentage of those students made growth. so this is something schools are able the look at. same graph, but this time we're looking at spanish speaking english learners. we have [inaudible] pathway is in green so again, it's the same -- looking at growth so you can see here that there was 64.5
9:14 pm
percent growth in spanish biliteracy [inaudible] also in third. these next two sets of graphs look at the same kinda concept -- achievement change, but using the tests -- the california standards test in english language arts so again, we have here on the left, the dark is the [inaudible] biliteracy pathway and the [inaudible] are from third to fourth grade. and for spanish speaking el's we have the same kind of data. and so again, the take away is that now we are able to provide this kinda information to schools so they can use it. next we're gonna look at an el -- classroom
9:15 pm
profile by el pathway and this is something that the rpa desk provides to schools and we're gonna look at three things and i'll explain on the next slide. so here this top one that says n equals 20 -- we're looking at this case at el's who started at this particular school in second grade in 2009 [inaudible] there were /#20* students that started in [inaudible] biliteracy and we're looking at -- there's percent of efficiency level from second grade moving up to third to fourth and the key part of this graph is to look at -- compare this group to the kennedy's bilingual students -- these are all e l's of the school -- all matched el's an
9:16 pm
then this bottom set of bar graphs are other students in [inaudible] biliteracy across the district so schools can use this information to see how this compares to other pathways in the school and how does it compare to other district biliteracy pathway. so there's a little legend at the bottom. >> good evening. data driven instruction is clearly a priority in our district. i 'd like to provide examples of the sources of data that we use.
9:17 pm
[inaudible] data such as the [inaudible] language assessments. and then we also consider our qualitative data to be a critical elm to informed practice and a few we'd like to particularly mention are walk throughs, which were a collaboration between our department and lead and special education and also our critical parent input via [inaudible]. and one specific site example that i'd like to provide is -- and this is how data has been used to drive instruction in one particular cohort of schools and that is in collaboration with our department, lead and rpa data were used to develop sites
9:18 pm
specific high leverage strategies such as enhanced english instruction, a focus on rigor and identifying important interventions specific to long term english learns and i'd like to pass the baton to christina. >> so the final portion is just an overview of the [inaudible] provision. i just wanna go over why we are [inaudible] so this is gonna be the 5th year of implementation and we want to have the opportunity to remove [inaudible] deadlines that have been completed and include them in on going practices. we also want this new document to priority key come -- components. so some
9:19 pm
of the proposed next steps between march -- between now and may of this year would be finalizing proposed revisions based on departmental feedback and gathered feedback from stake holders including bcc, [inaudible] council, the parent advisory council and of course our labor partners and other stake holders. we also wanna take the opportunity to develop a fiscal analysis and ensure that the document that we're gonna be revising in the final product would be sustainable over time. between june of this year we would like to initiate the [inaudible] submit revisions to the court. at
9:20 pm
this time this concludes our presentation. do the board members have any questions? >> thank you. i have a couple of questions, i presume that you have data that will -- you know, [inaudible] clearly shows us increasing significantly above the state average, but there are no targets there. i don't know what -- and this is a one year so i don't -- there isn't anything here that tells me over time how long it's taking people -- kids to get reclassified. >> so this past year we've established benchmark expectationings in terms of expectations of how many years
9:21 pm
it would take for reclassification. so with pathway it would take about six years. and we have a 17 percent target to ensure we're reclassifying students at the six year mark. >> and we see the state's reclassification percentages or numbers are smaller, the rhetoric at the state level is about much faster reclassification than that so is there something in what the state is telling us? i mean, are they just pretending that we're gonna reclassify within whatever it is -- three or four years even though it's not happening? >> well, i think that we said ours because we're trying to ensure that our students are moving forward and we don't
9:22 pm
have long term english learners in our district and the state recognizes that long term is five years or more so with that charge and knowing that we want students to move up, that they're successful, that they have greater opportunities we're making a lot of efforts at the elm tear level to do that prevention. this is something we're committed to. >> can i add to that? i do want to talk about the work we've been doing in terms of the services that we've been providing and also following up with our school sites to make sure that students who are eligible for reclassifications are being consider for that. maybe sometimes the paperwork isn't being followed up on so we're being more con /ses tent and creative at how we do that.
9:23 pm
>> my other question is about this chart. as was pointed out here, these are essentially the same so i'm kind of interested because we have been talking for years about we are phasing out the bilingual programs because they weren't effective so i don't get it. i need somebody to explain this to me how that can be english emersion which shows the diversion on the spanish... >> so the stanford study captures in 2000 to 2011 and so within that span of time we did still have earl -- early exit and late exit programs. so this is just a starting point and through that work we're now able to take a closer look, as
9:24 pm
you've seen at the charts that are provided, looking at 2010 they're moving up and as we're phasing the early exit pathways out /*ft . >> on what do we base our [inaudible] this is the direction in which we wanna go, but it's not okay for us to say based on ineffectiveness this is our recommendation to say it's okay to phase this out if this one piece of data doesn't seem to support that assertion. show me some other data so that i know why -- we shouldn't be asserting that we know something unless we do. >> this data really -- it starts with kindergarten so the
9:25 pm
students enter the kindergarten and they go through -- some of these students may have left the pathway, some may have stayed and a lot of 'em -- their primary language instruction stopped at third grade and i think [inaudible] there was great inconsistency in terms of how the pathways were being implemented. the hope is now that we have the clean data and the program variable -- part of the standard study also includes not only running this data set, but also interviews with former administrators and really understanding at the site level how much primary language instruction was happening at that time so we can actually take a look at site by site in
9:26 pm
terms of their implementation and what the effect and impact is so we're hoping to get that data soon as well. >> i appreciate that. however we're phasing out these programs. we can't using this as a baseline [inaudible] so at the very least it seems to me we need a different description of why we phase them out unless we have other data that you haven't showed us. i >> i do believe this is an opportune time to get this data because we are taking that information and using it to make a best recommendation in moving forward. we realize that in terms of what research based reasoning for saying that one program may be better than the other was not necessarily
9:27 pm
the reality of what was happening for our students in our school, but we didn't have the longitudeal data. let /aos look at that, make the enhancements we need, and figure out what we should and should not do based on this data set. also, we're looking at this data to see who are these english learners so when we talk about them as a whole, we don't often talk about what their -- if they're coming in as beginners in a particular program or if they're coming in as intermediate or advanced who haven't been reclassified so we're delving in with much data and getting as much information as possible. >> the main thing we should be
9:28 pm
concerned about is the difference between this and that so that's something that i presume one revision to the plan will /aeu -- address and be talking about i hope. >> are we phasing out -- are we continued now to phase out the early exit bilingual programs in the even the face of data that you're saying is much better, has the ability to analyze much better going forward, but in the past we had made the decision to phase out these programs, but are we still phasing them out... >> we were told they were not effective. >> sounds like we're gonna look at this data and recalibrate, but does that mean we're still gonna phase 'em out. ? >> like i said we're at a prime location to make that decision.
9:29 pm
where we're at in terms of phasing things out is at third and fourth grade so as we look at how we move forward with those schools that are on track to expanding their pathways, that's where we have a little bit of time to be able to make that determination to be able to make decisions on how we're going to move forward. >> i'm pressing on this point because i have some fear that we have made a lot of decisions about our pathways that are most effective that data may not be supporting now. so there's a lot of really big ininvestments that we have made in emersion programs and other

tv
[untitled]
March 12, 2013 9:00pm-9:30pm PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY California 7, Us 4, Lerner 2, Kevin 2, Christina Wong 2, El Pathway 2, Angie 1, Norton 1, Kevin Chavez 1, Ela 1, Tandem 1, Stanford 1, El Data 1, Longitudeal Data 1, Fpt 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480